When I hear people saying the rich should pay more taxes it sickens me. Why do we feel the need to discriminate against the rich just because they are rich? If people said blacks/whites/minorities etc should pay more taxes people would be outraged calling out the discrimination and racism, but when we discriminate based on wealth people cheer. Are those people hypocrites or do they just not see / care about the discrimination?

If we want to have an undiscriminating tax system everybody needs to pay the same % or the same $ amount otherwise the government is discriminating based on their wealth.

Feb 17 2012, 01:10 PM

Anikdote

People who oppose progressive taxation are typically the same people who understand very little economics. Progressive taxation is acceptable for various reasons, but primarily efficiency. The labor supply curve is backward bending, so higher taxes at upper incomes is less likely to result in work disincentives. Also because there is a marginal disutility of income, in other words each dollar earned provides less and less utility to the person earning.

Feb 17 2012, 01:43 PM

Gemini_Fyre

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anikdote

People who oppose progressive taxation are typically the same people who understand very little economics. Progressive taxation is acceptable for various reasons, but primarily efficiency. The labor supply curve is backward bending, so higher taxes at upper incomes is less likely to result in work disincentives. Also because there is a marginal disutility of income, in other words each dollar earned provides less and less utility to the person earning.

How does this in any way make sense? Not trying to start a flame war here but I would really like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Using a flat tax the wealthy will still pay more no matter what(assuming you tossed the whole tax code, which I think is a stellar idea...) because they make more money. While those who are less affluent pay less because they make less money. The proportions are fair and linear.

They both pay the same percentage, but one pays more because he earns/spends more. In my eyes I wouldn't even have an income tax, but something like a consumption/sales tax. That way if you want to pay less taxes you only need to spend less money and be more industrious. Perfectly acceptable option to me.

Makes sense in my mind, but hey if you have some other solution I am all ears for it.

Feb 17 2012, 01:56 PM

Gemini_Fyre

Before even discussing the tax levels we probably ought to decide on what we need the money for though. Because until we decide on that there is really no point on raising funds. Just a thought.

I walk into a grocery store with a list and once I am done I leave. I don't go in there with a blind intent and a credit card. That leads to bankruptcy when careless, and I think we could all point out many examples of carelessness in government spending.

Feb 17 2012, 01:57 PM

jor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anikdote

People who oppose progressive taxation are typically the same people who understand very little economics. Progressive taxation is acceptable for various reasons, but primarily efficiency. The labor supply curve is backward bending, so higher taxes at upper incomes is less likely to result in work disincentives. Also because there is a marginal disutility of income, in other words each dollar earned provides less and less utility to the person earning.

Just because I have a different opinion on economics and what is best for the economy does not mean I understand very little about economics.

Please explain why you support discrimination when involving taxes? How would you like if our politicians made a certain race pay more than other races?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini_Fyre

How does this in any way make sense? Not trying to start a flame war here but I would really like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Using a flat tax the wealthy will still pay more no matter what(assuming you tossed the whole tax code, which I think is a stellar idea...) because they make more money. While those who are less affluent pay less because they make less money. The proportions are fair and linear.

They both pay the same percentage, but one pays more because he earns/spends more. In my eyes I wouldn't even have an income tax, but something like a consumption/sales tax. That way if you want to pay less taxes you only need to spend less money and be more industrious. Perfectly acceptable option to me.

Makes sense in my mind, but hey if you have some other solution I am all ears for it.

Yes, this is exactly my opinion.

Feb 18 2012, 06:46 AM

Reiver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini_Fyre

How does this in any way make sense? Not trying to start a flame war here but I would really like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

He's used basic economics, understanding the nature of the utility function and the nature of income and substitution effects from net wage changes. In terms of whether he's correct or not, there is no debate. The best you could go for is a rejection that work is neutral (i.e. it only provides a means to exchange leisure for consumption). However, that would open up all sorts of issues which would reject the flat tax as complete folly. And that's the sad fact: the flat tax lobby is driven by dogma, rather than economic rationality

Feb 18 2012, 07:38 AM

DivineComedy

Quote:

Originally Posted by jor

When I hear people saying the rich should pay more taxes it sickens me. Why do we feel the need to discriminate against the rich just because they are rich? If people said blacks/whites/minorities etc should pay more taxes people would be outraged calling out the discrimination and racism, but when we discriminate based on wealth people cheer. Are those people hypocrites or do they just not see / care about the discrimination?

If we want to have an undiscriminating tax system everybody needs to pay the same % or the same $ amount otherwise the government is discriminating based on their wealth.

To tax a man who makes a million from invention more than a man who inherited, is discrimination against brains.

I see you support the Death Tax, and everybody pays the same % of their wealth (what they want the government to protect) in tax, good for you.

Brains, Brains...

Feb 18 2012, 08:18 PM

jor

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

To tax a man who makes a million from invention more than a man who inherited, is discrimination against brains.

Yes, it is. Taxing people differently is discrimination in different ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

I see you support the Death Tax, and everybody pays the same % of their wealth (what they want the government to protect) in tax, good for you.

Brains, Brains...

The only tax I support is sales tax and only if there is no tax on necessities such as food and water and it is capped at 5%.

Feb 18 2012, 11:09 PM

Makedde

Quote:

Originally Posted by jor

If we want to have an undiscriminating tax system everybody needs to pay the same % or the same $ amount otherwise the government is discriminating based on their wealth.

If everyone paid the same, the rich would still live in their snobby houses while the poorer people are out on the streets because all the money goes on taxes.

You earn more, you contribute more. Tough luck if you don't like it.

Feb 19 2012, 05:49 AM

Reiver

Quote:

Originally Posted by jor

Yes, it is. Taxing people differently is discrimination in different ways.

Given diminishing marginal utility of income, a single tax would be discriminatory by definition. To argue otherwise we'd need to see equality and homogeneity in preferences